A group of armed protesters who wanted to “show force” gathered outside a Texas mosque Saturday in response rumors about Syrian refugees and Sharia law.

The group, calling itself the Bureau of American Islamic Relations, stationed itself outside the Islamic Center of Irving carrying signs with messages like, “Stop the Islamization of America,” according to the Dallas Morning News. A video taken at the mosque shows a man dressed in black with his face masked carrying a rifle.
The group’s leader told the News they were upset because they had heard rumors of a Sharia court at the mosque and the prospect of letting Syrian refugees in. They also claimed members of the local Muslim community had made death threats against Irving’s mayor, Beth Van Duyne, earlier this year. The News found no evidence that this claim was true.

When asked by the News why his group was armed, organizer David Wright said the weapons were “mostly for self protection,” but then added, “But I’m not going to lie. We do want to show force. We’re not sitting ducks.”

Click to expand...

just because something it's legal does not mean you should, ***** morons

ammosexuals that are not smart enough to know when they hear ********. but hey christian law is so much better of course. I wish god would flush the toilet that is texas but I guess it is clogged with *******s again.

I've been following jkcerda's posts. He is an adamant defender of the right to bear arms and self-defense. But he's never said or opined that he supports using guns to intimidate or bully others. Or at least I've never caught him posting such opinions.

Clearly, using the right to carry firearms (even where legal) in order to intimidate others…. is a gross over-reach and an abuse of the right. If Americans do it enough, the Politicians will make sure that right is eventually taken away.

I've been following jkcerda's posts. He is an adamant defender of the right to bear arms and self-defense. But he's never said or opined that he supports using guns to intimidate or bully others. Or at least I've never caught him posting such opinions.

Clearly, using the right to carry firearms (even where legal) in order to intimidate others…. is a gross over-reach and an abuse of the right. If Americans do it enough, the Politicians will make sure that right is eventually taken away.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any normal person who would be ok with this.

Granted, the source seems to be a little out there, but I don't see why these yahoos haven't already been rounded up for brandishing.

It's one thing to carry, and I'm even ok with open carry, but the comments and tenor of the event suggest an open display with an intent to create fear or apprehension. Knuckleheads like this need to be taught that it is a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to brandish them against someone who is peaceably assembled and poses no threat to you or others.

Hopefully, the new democratic governor won't allow lynchings the way it's been done by Democratic KKK members during the bad old times you're referring to.

Click to expand...

Give it a rest, that was then, this is now.

It has been explained many many times to you on this forum, the Democratic party of the past was openly racist pandered to the KKK, the Dixie-crats. But the Democratic party moved on, into the 21st century, I think that it's time that you FM joined the 21st Century as well.

It has been explained many many times to you on this forum, the Democratic party of the past was openly racist pandered to the KKK, the Dixie-crats. But the Democratic party moved on, into the 21st century, I think that it's time that you FM joined the 21st Century as well.

Click to expand...

No! No! Don't you know that whoever was in the party sixty years ago is exactly the same as the party today. I mean, look at it...Republicans are the party of acceptance and freedom. You can see this by reading articles from the early 1900s!

It has been explained many many times to you on this forum, the Democratic party of the past was openly racist pandered to the KKK, the Dixie-crats. But the Democratic party moved on, into the 21st century, I think that it's time that you FM joined the 21st Century as well.

Click to expand...

Pardon me, but did I bring up the racism of the past? Check the thread.

But what is increasingly becoming apparent, Muslims are the new Black.

And, though I am wary of Islamic Fundamentalism, I'm even more wary of family practice attorneys. While one group has caused a bit of concern in my life, the other group has had a serious impact on my savings and retirement accounts... LOL

From what I've read on the subject, "Shariah" councils in "The West" largely exist as mediation bodies, where parties can voluntarily agree to have civil and family law issues adjudicated, instead of pushing them through the legal system. This is a perfectly legal and acceptable means of resolving such issues, and is considerably cheaper and more efficient than throwing money at lawyers.

For example - a couple wants to get a divorce can mutually decide to abide by the judgement of a third party. The resulting contract is only binding, if both parties decide that it is. Same holds true for civil suits, like one party buying a lemon of a used car from another. It's an opt-in system, and need not be religious in nature. If you and your soon to be ex-spouse are both impressed with the "Geniuses" at an Apple Store, you are free to both make an appointment and have him or her decide who takes over the credit card debt and who gets the kids on holidays. Again, an opt-in system. And though I'm wary of judgement being passed on the basis of a 7th century text, I'm even more wary of lawyers sending their bills... LOL

Now, mileage does vary by country. There are nut-bag states like Saudi-Arabia, where Shariah courts can sentence people to death and such. But that's nothing like what's going on here. These "courts" exist solely for mediating disagreements and settlements, and must abide by the civil and criminal laws in which they exist. A sharia "court" cannot, for example, decide it's OK for a 50yr old man to take a 6yr old bride, like Mohammed did.

That's actually a pretty unfair stereotype. There are some nut cases here, just like you'd find anywhere. But, the state is far from being a fortress of firearm freedoms.

Remember that among other things, open carry of handguns just passed this year, that the police here fought against codifying reasonable suspicion being needed to stop someone (claiming that they would be holding to that anyway), the original no-carry laws here were intended to keep blacks from being able to carry weapons, and places like San Antonio long made it illegal to carry a pocket knife.

We moved here, for work, 3.5 years ago. This place is different, but at least in the major cities/suburbs, is not really any different than any other place in the US. Even a lot of the farms aren't that different than those were we used to live.

The "Texan" mentality is really nothing more than peacock feathers and false bravado at this point.

just because something it's legal does not mean you should, ***** morons

Click to expand...

Exactly, it's these type of people who make it hard for normal responsible gun owners. Whether one agrees or not with what these protesters are doing, it is, in fact, an act of terrorism when you run around with a gun scaring the sh*t out of people for no reason.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.